The Supreme Court has reiterated that adults have the right to be in a live-in relationship, even if they have not attained the legal age for marriage..The judgement was passed last April by a Bench comprising Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan in the case of Nandakumar v. the State of Kerala..This case came before the Supreme Court after the Kerala High Court passed a judgement granting the custody of 19-year-old Thushara to her father, the respondent in appeal before the Supreme Court..Thushara’s father had moved a Habeas Corpus petition in the Kerala High Court stating that his daughter was in the illegal custody of the appellant. The appellant had contended that he was married to Thushara, after which the two started living together..On examining the case, the Kerala High Court found that while Thushara was of marriageable age, the appellant had still not attained the marriageable age of 21 years under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, although he was a major. Additionally, the appellants had no other evidence in support of their marriage except photographs of the ceremony..The Kerala High Court had, therefore, declared that Thushara was “not the lawfully wedded wife of appellant No. 1” and had entrusted her custody to her father..On appeal, the Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in this regard, considering that Thushara has attained the age of majority. Therefore, the Court observed that her custody could not be handed over to anyone, not even her father. Rather, she has the right to choose and is entitled to decide for herself regarding where and with whom she wants to live..The Court also addressed the question regarding the validity of the marriage between Thushara and the appellant thus,.“[I]t cannot be said that merely because appellant No. 1 was less than 21 years of age, marriage between the parties is null and void.”.On the contrary, the Court noted that a marriage of this nature is only voidable under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act..Importantly, the Court highlighted that since both Thushara and the appellant are majors, they have the right to be in a live-in relationship even outside wedlock. It was also noted that ‘live-in relationships’ are recognized under the law..“Even if they were not competent to enter into wedlock (which position itself is disputed), they have right to live together even outside wedlock. .It would not be out of place to mention that ‘live-in relationship’ is now recognized by the Legislature itself which has found its place under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.”.The Court placed reliance on the its judgement in the Hadiya case and even quoted excerpts from Justice Chandrachud’s concurring judgement regarding an adult’s Constitutional right of choice..It therefore, proceeded to allow the appeal, stating,.“[W]e make it clear that the freedom of choice would be of Thushara as to with whom she wants to live.”.Read the judgement below.
The Supreme Court has reiterated that adults have the right to be in a live-in relationship, even if they have not attained the legal age for marriage..The judgement was passed last April by a Bench comprising Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan in the case of Nandakumar v. the State of Kerala..This case came before the Supreme Court after the Kerala High Court passed a judgement granting the custody of 19-year-old Thushara to her father, the respondent in appeal before the Supreme Court..Thushara’s father had moved a Habeas Corpus petition in the Kerala High Court stating that his daughter was in the illegal custody of the appellant. The appellant had contended that he was married to Thushara, after which the two started living together..On examining the case, the Kerala High Court found that while Thushara was of marriageable age, the appellant had still not attained the marriageable age of 21 years under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, although he was a major. Additionally, the appellants had no other evidence in support of their marriage except photographs of the ceremony..The Kerala High Court had, therefore, declared that Thushara was “not the lawfully wedded wife of appellant No. 1” and had entrusted her custody to her father..On appeal, the Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in this regard, considering that Thushara has attained the age of majority. Therefore, the Court observed that her custody could not be handed over to anyone, not even her father. Rather, she has the right to choose and is entitled to decide for herself regarding where and with whom she wants to live..The Court also addressed the question regarding the validity of the marriage between Thushara and the appellant thus,.“[I]t cannot be said that merely because appellant No. 1 was less than 21 years of age, marriage between the parties is null and void.”.On the contrary, the Court noted that a marriage of this nature is only voidable under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act..Importantly, the Court highlighted that since both Thushara and the appellant are majors, they have the right to be in a live-in relationship even outside wedlock. It was also noted that ‘live-in relationships’ are recognized under the law..“Even if they were not competent to enter into wedlock (which position itself is disputed), they have right to live together even outside wedlock. .It would not be out of place to mention that ‘live-in relationship’ is now recognized by the Legislature itself which has found its place under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.”.The Court placed reliance on the its judgement in the Hadiya case and even quoted excerpts from Justice Chandrachud’s concurring judgement regarding an adult’s Constitutional right of choice..It therefore, proceeded to allow the appeal, stating,.“[W]e make it clear that the freedom of choice would be of Thushara as to with whom she wants to live.”.Read the judgement below.
